by Joseph DeMaio, ©2021

(Apr. 15, 2021) — When there is an objection from the leftists and Democrats that state laws requiring the removal of the names of deceased former registered voters from the rolls of still alive, eligible and otherwise qualified voters somehow constitutes “voter suppression,” you know or should know – unless you are a brain-dead liberal zombie – that something is wrong. As in really wrong.

The enactment in Georgia of its new voter and election integrity law – S.B. 202 – has sent liberals and congressional Democrats into an apoplectic fit.  To that point, would the bursting of a blood vessel in Nancy Pelosi’s brain really be a bad thing? 

In addition, the continued resistance by Senators Joe Manchin (D. W. VA) and Kyrsten Sinema (D. AZ) to the elimination of the Senate filibuster, thus threatening passage of the “Permanent Domination of Federal Elections by Democrats Act,” H.R.1 and/or S. 1, has produced similar cerebral aneurisms in both Al Sharpton and Congressman James Clyburn (D. S.C.). They both need, in the vernacular, a couple of “chill pills.”

And the battle continues at the state level, too.  By way of but one example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, there is pending an effort by the Arizona State Senate to examine and/or “audit” the ballots and certain suspected 2020 election “anomalies” in the county, the largest and most populous in Arizona.  That effort, however, is now being resisted and attacked by the Democrats through their sympathetic organizations and attack law firms.

Specifically, lawyers with “The Protect Democracy Project” – said to have relationships with Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and a fellow named George Soros – plus three additional Phoenix law firms, including…, wait for it…, wait for it…, the Phoenix office of Perkins Coie, LLP – sent a letter to four digital forensic analysis contractors which have been engaged by the Arizona Senate to perform the examination/audit. 

To understate the text and tone of the letter, it is not one urging them to proceed apace and to discover the truth.   For ease of reference, the letter will be hereafter referenced as simply the “4 Amigos Letter” or simply “the letter.”

Far from urging the contractors to go forth and reveal the truth, the letter instead seeks to warn them of the potential “downsides” – civil, criminal and financial – of proceeding with their efforts.  The first paragraph of the letter warns, ominously, that certain tasks identified under the “Statement of Work” proposal offered by one of the contractors, “Cyber Ninjas,” are “tactics” which, as “explained” in the balance of the letter, purportedly “constitute illegal voter intimidation and might expose your companies to both civil and criminal penalties.” 

There is no suggestion that the so-called “tactics” – in the context of the sentence, a pejorative deployment of the term – “might” or “may” violate the law.  Instead, the categorical statement made is that the contemplated activities “constitute illegal voter intimidation,” as if a judicial determination already exists and the only things remaining are the sentencing to jail and payment of the Democrat lawyers’ attorneys’ fees.  Really?  Before accepting that conclusion at face value, it might be a good idea to examine the statement a bit more.

The letter also “demands” that the contractors, among other dictates, “immediately (1) cease any planned or ongoing violations of federal and state law, including but not limited to any conduct that may intimidate voters….”  

Seriously?  The contractors are commanded to “cease any planned or ongoing violations” of state or federal laws, including “any conduct that may intimidate voters….”  Is the mere engagement of the contractors by the Senate of the Legislature of the State of Arizona, without more, enough to constitute “voter intimidation?”  The letter suggests that it just may be, although common sense suggests the contrary.

Let us take a closer look at the situation, but fair advance warning: that which follows gets a bit convoluted and addresses “at the margins” linguistic alterations and “out of context” issues.  Moreover, some readers may deem the issues too esoteric to matter. 

Too bad: language and words are important.  And remember what Mark Twain said: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter – it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” Furthermore, it does not take much linguistic chicanery – including the use of punctuation – to alter meanings in significant ways.  For example, consider the shopworn comparisons of “The king said the queen is a fool” and “‘The king,’ said the queen, ‘is a fool.’”

Accordingly, faithful P&E readers may wish to have their favorite caffeinated beverage handy… your humble servant has sworn off Diet Coke® and now sips Diet Dr. Pepper® (Plano, TX).  Ready?  Let us begin.

First, Democrats and their allies have become very skilled at wordsmithing and manipulating language – for example, via ellipsis, misquotes and outright fabrication – altering words which others have uttered or used in, for example, statutes, official policy statements or judicial rulings.  This is particularly true when they are seeking to support a particular claim or assertion fortifying their pre-determined narrative by referencing a judicial decision or some official document. 

This “at the margins” phenomenon, of course, is familiar to P&E readers with regard to the “products” of the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) and their “treatment” of the “natural born Citizen” status – or absence thereof – of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., as discussed here and here.  It took only the ellipsis omission of a date in the Supreme Court’s 1939 Perkins v. Elg decision for the CRS to concoct the purported, but flawed, conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was (or is) a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution, as discussed here.

Second, the 4 Amigos Letter utilizes this tactic in admonishing the contractors to behave themselves…, or be prepared for potential adverse consequences.  As but one example of the linguistic tactics used, take a closer look at the text of the letter associated with footnote 10 (p. 3 of the letter).  That text states: “As the Department of Justice has previously explained, one can violate federal voting rights law even when it is purportedly part of an effort to investigate election crimes and fraud. [fn. 10].” (Emphasis added). 

The operative portion of the sentence, i.e., the second clause beginning “one can violate…,” comes not from a formal Justice Department policy statement or from a judicial decision articulating that policy.  Instead, it comes from a 2-page 2016 press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama. 

The press release is entitled “District Elections Officers Available Nov. 8 [2016] to Receive Complaints of Election Fraud or Voting Rights Abuses.”  The first clause of the 4 Amigos’ Letter asserting that “[a]s the Department of Justice has previously explained….” is not part of the press release but is instead an attempt in the letter to portray the next clause as summarizing a broad policy set out elsewhere in the release.

Not so fast: prior to that portion of the press release relied upon by the 4 Amigos for the substantive policy statement (i.e., “… even when it is purportedly part of an effort to investigate election crimes and fraud. [fn. 10]”) is misleading – intentionally or not is for others to decide – because the antecedent examples listed in the press release all relate to election day prohibitions, not efforts five months later to further analyze and resolve doubts as to the integrity of the vote as is now taking place in Maricopa County. 

Indeed, the full text of the paragraph in the 2016 press release from which the 4 Amigos Letter extracts its “quote” reads as follows:  “Federal law protects against such crimes as intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input. It also contains special protections for the rights of voters and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. For example, actions designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting, may violate federal voting rights law.  Further, federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice.” (Emphasis added)

Plainly, the press release focuses on election day issues.  Indeed, the first introductory paragraph of the release confirms that it addresses matters “in connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the upcoming Nov. 8 general elections.” (Emphasis added) 

The entire thrust of the press release thus boils down to a commitment by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama to accept and address election day complaints of election fraud and discrimination “at the polls…,” “while the polls are open…,” and “on election day.”  In 2016, that day was Nov. 8, when Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary (“BleachBit-What-BleachBit?”) Clinton and was elected President.

This is not to say, of course, that other, post-election day acts – such as the Arizona Senate contractors’ current tasks – are wholly irrelevant.  Not so.  However, the point is that portrayal by the 4 Amigos Letter of the extracted partial quote therein – particularly as embellished in footnote 10 – as being the sine qua non thrust of the missive and purportedly “[a]s the Department of Justice has previously explained…” is manifestly misleading.  On the other hand, that characteristic dovetails nicely into the overall intimidating tone of the letter.

Footnote 10 of the 4 Amigos Letter reads as follows: “10  See U.S. Att’y for N.D. Ala., District Elections Officers Available Nov. 8 to Receive Complaints of Election Fraud or Voting Rights Abuses (Oct. 21, 2016), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/district-elections officers-available-nov-8-receive-complaints-election-fraud-or-voting  (observing that even “actions to uncover illegal voting . . . may violate federal voting rights law”).” 

P&E reader alert: clicking on the link in the preceding paragraph may produce an error message, but that is what the actual text of the footnote states.  In order to access online an image of the Oct. 21, 2016 press release, one must go here.

The reader signal “see” at the beginning of the footnote denotes that the following “authority” (here, a press release) is cited in direct support and confirmation of the immediately preceding associated textual statement.  Thereafter, however, the footnote then manipulates a portion of the press release language and asserts in a parenthetical, out-of-context partial quote extracted from the release a conclusion not conveyed by the press release.

Specifically, that parenthetical, out-of-context “quote” is not what the press release says or intimates.  Moreover, the “ellipsis” (the three dots between “voting” and “may” in the parenthetical) omits only a single comma.  What is up with that?  From a grammatical standpoint, it could signal that what was being omitted from the partial quote of the press release were the several examples of evils sought to be addressed on election day at the polls instead of 5 months later in a letter admonishing the Arizona Senate contractors to tread very, very carefully as they perform their tasks.

Whether or not additional components of the 4 Amigos Letter present the same species of “at the margins” wordsmithing is left for others to identify and address.  Your humble servant lacks the patience and desire to further dissect the letter, but would offer the wisdom of an ancient legal maxim: “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”  False in one thing, false in all things.

Moreover, if there is any intimidation to be found here, it lies within the 4 Amigos Letter, not the Senate contractors.  In addition, apart from the potential for the contractors to contact persons directly or by phone, seen as “voter intimidation” by the letter, there would seem to be nothing to preclude them from, for example, doing a public service announcement via newspaper, television ad or news release that they are seeking voluntary responses from persons who are interested in removing any remaining doubt as to the legitimacy and accuracy of the 2020 general election vote in Maricopa County.  If respondents voluntarily contacted the contractors and answered their questions, it cannot plausibly be argued that they were badgered, threatened or intimidated.  

Stay tuned…, the saga in Maricopa County is not yet over.

Join the Conversation

16 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Response to “Dennis Becker” from Joseph DeMaio:

    The Becker comment that the term “canning” might be preferred to “bottling” of Dr Pepper as being “a ‘little’ off topic” (The Four Amigos Letter – The Post & Email) earns him the Alinsky “look-at-the-shiny-object” award of the day. Congratulations! And, BTW, we still await a response from “Wilson,” “Luke” or anyone else regarding whether the 4 Amigos Letter facilitates – or instead frustrates – the search for the truth. And please, spare P&E readers the nonsense that the “truth” has purportedly already been established in Maricopa County. If that were “true,” why would the Democrats be conscripting $1,000/hr. attorneys to threaten legal action for even searching for the truth?

    1. So what did you decide about drinking Dr Pepper? Is it okay for the boycott of Coca Cola or not?

      Off the topic of Dr Pepper versus Coke for a moment. Why is it that the right also accuse the left of Alinsky tactics and the left always accuse the right of Goebbels’ Big Lie tactics?

  2. Although Diet Dr. Pepper is owned by Keurig Dr. Pepper, some of the U.S. supply is produced under contract by Coca-Cola.

    1. From the author:

      Interesting. The substantive deceptions of footnote 10 in the ominous 4 Amigos Letter are now revealed to the world…, and Mr. Wilson focuses the world’s attention on who manufactures Dr. Pepper, a typical liberal “look-at-the-shiny-object” deflection tactic. While the intimidating letter seeks to prevent, through misrepresentations, any further examination of some 2.1 million ballots from the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Arizona, Wilson frets about the source of a caffeinated soft drink being consumed by your humble servant. Really?

        1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

          The Diet Dr. Pepper can from which the caffeinated beverage is being sipped by your humble servant discloses that it originated in the Plano, TX bottling facility. If proof is adduced that Coca-Cola owns and operates that Texas facility, your humble servant will immediately switch brands of caffeinated drinks. Until then: skol!. Oh…, and BTW, there is no evidence thus far discovered substantiating a rumor that Mr. Wilson is related to the spherical companion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_Away#Wilson_the_volleyball) to Tom Hanks in the film Cast Away.

        2. Regardless of where each batch of Dr. Diet Pepper is bottled, Coca-Cola derives revenue from its consumption. If the demand for it is lessened, Keurig Dr. Pepper wouldn’t need to outsource its production to Coca-Cola.

          The facility in Plano, Texas appears to be a corporate office, and not a bottling plant.

          Regardless, switching to Diet Pepsi would be a more effective boycott of Coca-Cola.

        3. That’s true about Coca-Cola making a lot of money from Dr Pepper, they are a huge shareholder, bottler and distributor. By the way, there’s no period after “Dr”. In the 1950s, Morrison took out the period from ‘Dr’ to make the brand name more stylish.

          Important to note that The Coca-Cola Company was Keurig Green Mountain’s largest shareholder at 17.4%. Now the majority is owned by a foreign company, JAB Holding Co, the private holding company of Germany’s Reimann family.

          The company’s business arrangement with Coca-Cola is quite complex. When Dr Pepper filed for bankruptcy in 2008, Coca-Cola tried to buy it. However, antitrust problems prevented the merger from pushing through. But still, Coca Cola owns some of the rights to distribute Dr Pepper in other countries such as in select European countries and in South Korea. Dr Pepper also utilizes some of Coca-Cola’s bottling facilities and warehouses for its beverage products.

          JAB Holdings owns the majority of Dr Pepper’s stock (about 86%).

          Nearly 100% of the market of Dr Pepper is in the United States. It uses different bottling companies to bottle its beverages. Coca-Cola owns the majority of these bottling facilities. Dr Pepper has also made business arrangements with the soft drinks giant to distribute its products. It provides the syrups or the ingredients and recipes to the bottlers. The bottlers, in turn, pour the liquid beverages into Dr Pepper bottles. Dr Pepper has an existing bottling and warehouse agreement with Coca-Cola.

          Last month, Keurig Dr Pepper announced it: “Earns Perfect Score in Human Rights Campaign’s 2021 Corporate Equality Index —
          KDP designated as a “Best Place to Work” for LGBTQ equality in the U.S.” https://news.keurigdrpepper.com/2021-01-28-Keurig-Dr-Pepper-Earns-Perfect-Score-in-Human-Rights-Campaigns-2021-Corporate-Equality-Index

        4. From author Joseph DeMaio:

          Just when you thought that an end to the inane “look-at-the-shiny-object” deflective comments about Coca Cola and Dr Pepper (note the omission of the period after “Dr”) had arrived, “Luke” renews attention to the issue. Once again we are treated to a typical Alinsky-liberal tactic: latch onto a topic completely unrelated to the substantive issue, then discuss it into the ground hoping that everyone will forget about the main issue.

        5. I do not believe Alinsky invented the concept of providing full and accurate information.

          Truth should be welcomed, not disparaged.

        6. From Joseph DeMaio:

          If, as claimed by Wilson, “[t]ruth should be welcomed, not disparaged,” then perhaps he can justify and explain why the 4 Amigos Letter seeks to prevent – via intimidation, threat and deception – even the search for the truth, much less the truth itself. Does Wilson condemn the letter and the content of its misleading footnote as a mechanism designed to discourage and frustrate discovery of the truth? Or on the other hand, does he welcome the letter and its import? Inquiring minds want to know.

        7. Apparently both Dr Pepper/7UP and Coca Cola have bottling plants in the North Dallas area. Coke also has a corporate office.

          I believe the Dr Pepper plant is in Plano so it is highly likely the can Mr. DeMaio was drinking was not bottled by Coca Cola.

          This is a little off topic but is bottling the correct term for when they fill an aluminum can? Shoulding it be canning?

  3. There is no statute of limitations on fraud. Based on that, the 2020 election is NOT over.

    When fraud is proven in one state be it Arizona, Georgia or New Hampshire, that will codify the suspicion of election fraud into concrete reality that damned well better be adjudicated. The RNC needs to be spooling up war cash and attorneys getting ready to spring the traps on all these fools that have been cheating our elections for years.

    There are about 15 other states that are prepared to extend full forensic audits to expose the fraud. What concerns me is we did the same thing with Obama as Sheriff proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through forensics, Barack Obama amassed election fraud twice on an industrial scale and the RNC sat by the sidelines with blinders, earplugs, and no good answer as to why their spine left.

    This had better not happen here.

    1. There are statutes of limitations for fraud; the exact time varies by jurisdiction.

      Regardless, no court has the power to undo a presidential election, as Congress had the final say.

  4. Thank you Joseph DeMaio,

    Desperate efforts are underway to insure Donald Trump is not elected president again in 2024. I believe they realize if Trump runs again they will have to cheat their way past a lot more than 80 million votes.

    IMO the installation in 2009 of the Soros funded, Brennan and the CIA created, ineligible identity fraud Barack Hussein Obama was easily the biggest criminal act against American citizens and her Constitution in history. All complicit in the Obama fraud understand the magnitude of what happened when John Roberts swore-in Obama, twice. America’s government and her military were effectively given to her enemies and that mother of all crimes had to be covered-up, forever. That is why it was so important for Hillary to be the after Obama cover president, and even more important that it absolutely must not be Donald Trump as President.

    We watched the extreme actions, and sometimes inaction of both political parties who swore an oath to protect the Constitution and failed miserably. They protected Obama from day one of his usurpation, (and before) and are still protecting him today to protect number one, themselves. The media was/is 98% complicit as they completely lost all objectivity and promoted the total fraud Obama,… proving they are propaganda outlets for the Socialist/Communist takeover of America from the inside……The Communist goal of “defeating America without firing a shot” is almost complete and America has not responded in an effective way…..at least not yet…………. It turned out Obama’s usurpation really was a crime, “too big to prosecute” and the many complicit, both political parties and others throughout the world have the power and money to insure that Obama remains untouchable……..even with the unexpected election in 2016 of Obama’s biggest nemesis, Donald J. Trump. By stealing the 2020 election from President Trump they are now fully back in control to finalize the destruction of America from the inside. It turns out the failure of Hillary as the after Obama cover has sped up the takeover because the enemy within now believes, after 4 years of Donald Trump and nothing being done about the Obama fraud and many other serious crimes they have and are committing, that they can do anything they want……………….